What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[CrownySuccubus]

I think there's a difference between deserving in some moral sense because you have sinned - and falling victim to a fatal flaw of your society that will inevitably lead to ruin. The difference might be subtle but I think it's important.

That would be nice, if the story didn't repeatedly try to entwine those two things. For example, the strawman "eW wOn'T aCcEpT iT !" ancients that Venat debated with just before the Sundering. And once again, the devs have flat out stated that they intended Ancient society to be "scary".

The narrative definitely pushes "fatal flaws" and "deadly sins" as the same exact thing.

[KariTheFox]

Kobolds can talk. Limsans were fine with mass slaughtering them to steal their land. The Eden primals could talk. We still slaughtered them after giving life to them. I guess we’re the villain now boyo’s.

Yes, the Limsans were wrong to slaughter the kobold. The story and I both agree with that.

Primal are a weird case because thier existence is inherently unstable, and we don't really "kill" them when we disperse thier aether. They are perfectly capable of being summoned again, and seem to have some vague continuity of existence between summoning.

Also worth pointing out the the Japanese names for trials involving primals are "subjugation missions" while the ones for non-primals are usually along the lines of "elimination missions."

[KizuyaKatogami]

Yes, the Limsans were wrong to slaughter the kobold. The story and I both agree with that.

Primal are a weird case because thier existence is inherently unstable, and we don't really "kill" them when we disperse thier aether. They are perfectly capable of being summoned again, and seem to have some vague continuity of existence between summoning.

Also worth pointing out the the Japanese names for trials involving primals are "subjugation missions" while the ones for non-primals are usually along the lines of "elimination missions."

Is dispersing their aether not the same as what unmade creations do? Even if not, again, i bring up the mass slaughtering of animals, the “sentient mochi” in the heavensturm event(lol), the killing of animals for entertainment etc. Also, unstable existence isn’t that essentially the same as the Lykaons? If they hadn’t been unmade they would have wreaked havoc on the ecosystem? Again this just seems like another case of rules for thee but not for me. It’s horrible and wrong and unimaginable when it’s the ancients do it, but if the sundered do it a simple “sorry” or no remarks whatsoever is enough to make it better.

If its a case of oh its okay because they can come back...then i guess killing anything with a soul is okay since they can just be reincarnated right?

[Xirean]

Is dispersing their aether not the same as what unmade creations do? Even if not, again, i bring up the mass slaughtering of animals, the “sentient mochi” in the heavensturm event(lol), the killing of animals for entertainment etc. Also, unstable existence isn’t that essentially the same as the Lykaons? If they hadn’t been unmade they would have wreaked havoc on the ecosystem? Again this just seems like another case of rules for thee but not for me. It’s horrible and wrong and unimaginable when it’s the ancients do it, but if the sundered do it a simple “sorry” or no remarks whatsoever is enough to make it better.

If its a case of oh its okay because they can come back...then i guess killing anything with a soul is okay since they can just be reincarnated right?

Why do you consistently bring up counter points assuming that people agree with the implied wrong doing? If you're asking about people's consistency of ideals then just ask.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Why do you consistently bring up counter points assuming that people agree with the implied wrong doing? If you're asking about people's consistency of ideals then just ask.

Because people continue to consistently bash the ancients for things the sundered aren’t any less guilty of doing, and things the ancients actually do better for. It’s a horrible double standard situation. Also half of the comments i made in the post your quoting arent even counter points of the sundered, it’s counter points to their overall argument. Lykaons were a danger to the ecosystem like the primals were so both situations are apparently okay. If it’s okay to kill them because they can come back eventually then it’s okay to kill anything with a soul because they’ll be reincarnated eventually. It’s flawed logic overall, but mainly i’m tired of people acting like the ancients were the worst thing in the world when in reality the sundered are objectively worse lol.

[Nilroreo]

And the point at which you are willing to sacrifice sentient beings who can feel, talk, and communicate for your own selfish reasons is the point at which you become a villain and the heroes of a story are obligated to stop you.

This is why the WoL could never see eye to eye with Emet-Selch. The unsundered people if the shards were the "talking dogs" that he planned to put to the slaughter.

Hydaelyn spared Emet, Lahabrea, and Elidibus during the sundering so they could play their role in rejoining 7 worlds. 7 worlds gone, all for you, a random warrior of light she met only briefly and placed her blind faith on. Whether you believe her actions to be altruistic or not will never change the fact that our victory, as decided by mommy Hydaelyn (in her pursuit of one specific timeline she determined was the only right path), required an immeasurable loss of innocent lives.

[Xirean]

Because people continue to consistently bash the ancients for things the sundered aren’t any less guilty of doing, and things the ancients actually do better for. It’s a horrible double standard situation. Also half of the comments i made in the post your quoting arent even counter points of the sundered, it’s counter points to their overall argument. Lykaons were a danger to the ecosystem like the primals were so both situations are apparently okay. If it’s okay to kill them because they can come back eventually then it’s okay to kill anything with a soul because they’ll be reincarnated eventually. It’s flawed logic overall, but mainly i’m tired of people acting like the ancients were the worst thing in the world when in reality the sundered are objectively worse lol.

Who is saying the ancients are the worst thing in the world? The only thing I'm seeing is "don't kill people." I think the ancients got the shit end of the stick with Elpis; I still wouldn't want the rejoinings to occur because that would kill a lot of people that are currently alive. That doesn't mean I value the sundered over the unsundered. I just don't want to sub one genocide for another people to live.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Who is saying the ancients are the worst thing in the world? The only thing I'm seeing is "don't kill people." I think the ancients got the shit end of the stick with Elpis; I still wouldn't want the rejoinings to occur because that would kill a lot of people that are currently alive. That doesn't mean I value the sundered over the unsundered. I just don't want to sub one genocide for another people to live.

Many people lol. Not in this thread specifically but the other threads trying to rip apart the ancients and find every little thing they did “wrong” to try and justify them being sundered and trying to justify venat’s actions. They think that because they unmade creations they’re horrible people. When in reality the sundered do far worse but none of them comment on that. That’s my entire problem with this. I understand the reasoning behind most of the sundered’s actions, the same i do the ancients. I don’t necessarily condemn either side. But if people are going to start bringing up things that the ancients do and are wrong for doing when the sundered do the same thing and no one comments on it or people don’t classify that as wrong..then i will speak up because like in the other thread i made, there’s this horrible trend in the story of “It’s okay when the main cast does it, but if the antagonists do it it’s bad and wrong.”

Edit: Just an example from someone here as proof.

"As much as I love the characters and the lore around it, I'm not convinced that Amaurot was worth saving. When Hermes describes his colleagues' blatant disregard for non-Amaurotian life yet had no language to express his dissent with it, I couldn't help but feel deeply uncomfortable with the wordless cruelty of whole place. It most certainly was not beautiful. It was high time that the gods learnt to walk."
(8)

[Lauront]

It is if not outright stated, at least HEAVIYL implied that they intended to sacrifice the new races and species that sprung forth after the second sacrifice for the third and beyond, not themself(or atleast not themself exclusivly)

It's not implied - what is implied is that they'd use the life seeded by Zodiark, which given what we now know of how creation magicks functioned and the apparent emergence of life on the star (i.e. that the ancients were responsible for at the least a good chunk of it), is very likely to be further creations. When you say "new races", there are none. The sundered are sundered ancients who evolved in specific ways in response to their new circumstances according to the Q&A. All this leaves is animals, plant life and arcane entities/familiars (of which the WoL is not considered to be a characteristic example, as per the sidequests... even Meteion, an unapproved familiar which nonetheless is herself in some facets robotic, is exceptional.) So effectively, arcane AIs in the last category.

Were they really sacrificing those who they saw as "beneath" them or were they trying to put the pieces of fractured souls back together to undo the damage the was caused by the sundering in the first place? It's really not difficult to understand why Emet and crew saw us as not being alive. If you sister threw a vase across the room and broke said vase because it was in danger of being knocked off a table that you already put supports under, are the pieces still a vase? That is up for a philosophical argument. But you have a couple things you can do right now. You can either throw the pieces away or remake them into the vase it used to be, and if that vase was important to you, what would you do? Are you destroying the pieces for the sake of the whole or do you leave the vase broken for the sake of the pieces? The whole evil ascian thing is really not so cut and dry, esp with what we know now.

And it really wasn't spelled out that the ancients would not have succeeded, except by hydaelyn, who of course is going to use any means necessary to justify her actions, which is where the gaslighting comes in. Because that is what narcissists, abusers and straight up dictators do. When anything bad happens, the majority tend to hide, that much is true. But all it takes is a few with means and knowledge on the subject to come together and find a solution. Hydaelyn had that knowledge and as a people that had the means. Imagine, when the first plague hit mankind and we were dying by the thousands, if the top scientist who could save us because they knew exactly what was happening, decided just to kill everyone because future generations could do it better, even if the virus that killed most of humanity set us back millenia evolutionarily speaking.

Very well said.

[Theodric]

I just don't want to sub one genocide for another people to live.

...and yet that's exactly what Venat chose to do. To inflict genocide upon her own people and seek to destroy all memory of their existence whilst stealing credit from Zodiark for protecting Etheirys not only in the days of the Unsundered but during the days of the Sundered as well.

It makes perfect sense for the Sundered to do whatever is possible in order to continue to exist - but at the same time that can be applied to the Unsundered as well.